Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sell Out


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Keep.  Citi Cat   ♫ 01:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sell Out

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Was nominated for speedy deletion, but not for a valid speedy reason, in any case this album does not seem to assert why its notable and needs an encyclopaedia entry. In addition no references. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 00:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Selling out because Sell out does and I could imangine someone typing that term captialise the word Out by mistake. --70.48.109.25 02:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 02:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Abstain. If this is deleted, a better redirect would be to The Who Sell Out. Note that this is also the title of an album by Dia Psalma, which has an entry in the Swedish wikipedia (sv:Sell Out). If these are deemed notable, perhaps a disambiguation page would be best. Rigadoun (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - The band Halfcocked has had an article on here for years, which probably means they are notable, which probably means their albums are notable, according to WP:MUSIC. While it's true these articles aren't much more than tracklistings, the three Halfcocked album articles up for deletion haven't exactly had much time to grow, being created only yesterday. --Bongwarrior 05:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was the one who nominated this for speedy deletion, although at the time all that was there was a tracklist and one line of info. I'm still new to this line of wiki work and so I'm still prone to mistakes :). Personally, I don't think notability is inherited and the album should be deleted since it has no sources and no possibility for any. Rigadoun raised some interesting points though... a dismabig page will probably be needed. Seraphim  Whipp 09:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * With Precious Roy's additions, I change my vote to keep. Seraphim Whipp 22:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Halfcocked, unless more material can be found specifically pertaining to this release. Bondegezou 16:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's an album by a notable (-enough) band. The article needs work, not deletion. Precious Roy 13:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added a bit to the page (AMG review link + rating, more info, cat + stub tags) Precious Roy 13:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing that can be done to improve these articles. There are no references in the articles and no sources that exist to ever improve this article. Seraphim  Whipp 15:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a ridiculous statement. Further research can be done, more content can be added. There's a reason that we have "stub" categories here on Wikipedia. The AMG link is enough of a reference for the the content that currently exists, and other references can be added along with additional content. Precious Roy 15:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's truly not ridiculous. No one has written about this album ergo, there will never be anything to write about this album apart from OR. There is one link and that seems to be all. You say other references can be added, but you've missed my point. My point was exactly that no sources exist. Also in case anyone is wondering, my reasoning for copy and pasting the same arguments in each of these related afds is that different people participate in different afds. Seraphim  Whipp 16:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not missed your point. Your statement that "no one has written about this album" is truly ridiculous: A simple check of All Music Guide shows that someone has written about this album. Going to just one site I was able to find a source. Claiming that "no sources exist" is a fallacy, to say the least (it's more like dissemblance on your part). With a little effort I don't doubt that more sources can be found. (I too am pasting my comments from the other album—these really should have been bundled in the same AfD). Precious Roy 19:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupation: Rock Star (album by the same band) to see that additional references were found for that album. I don't have time this evening to research more but I think that's proof enough that a simple Google search is not proof of non-notablilty. Sheesh, I was never a fan of this band and here I am doing all this work. I truly have a Wikiproblem. Precious Roy 21:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.